• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal[W:286]

The Man said:
Not only that, but everyone thinks congress and the senate is awful, but their congressman and senators are great, it's everyone else's that are the problem.
Click to expand...

I know, right! Everyone's got it backwards. When will they realize that it's *my* representatives who are golden and their's suck? :wink:
 
Federal Court rules Most obamacare subsidies Illegal

sangha said:
I know, right! Everyone's got it backwards. When will they realize that it's *my* representatives who are golden and their's suck? :wink:
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. Lol

Hey, I vote for the challenger every time. I don't like career politicians as my representatives. They get too comfortable and lazy, only in it for the easy high paycheck and retirement. I want people with drive and who fear that a bad decision can cost them their job.
 
Perotista said:
Yeah, it is easy to see why the federal government has become omni-powerful when section 8, Article I of the Constitution is completely ignored as to what powers the federal will have. Along with the 10th Amendment with states all the rest of the power resides with the states or the people.
Click to expand...

How are you framing this a states rights issue. States did not have health exchanges nor did states offer its residents health insurance. The federal government did not force the states to form health exchanges.

So what is the state's rights issue on this ruling?
 
sangha said:
Yes, the one paragraph out of thousands and thousands of pages of text seems straightforward when you ignore those other million words.

However, if you were to look at those other words, you'd find some that clearly suggest that the tax credits would also apply to people who bought through an exchange run by the feds. This creates "ambiguity" and the court has a process, established long before AVA was even proposed, to resolve such ambiguities. This process requires the court to defer to the agency's interpretation of the text unless one can provide a compelling case for why they should not be deferred to (such as the interpretation is clearly in conflict with any reasonable interpretation of the text, unconstitutionality, etc)

In the decision that allows the subsidies, the court cites several examples of text that make no sense unless the authors intended the subsidies to apply to all of the exchanges, and not just those "established by the States". Ergo, "ambiguity"...Ergo "deference" to the IRS's interpretation
Click to expand...

So basically it all boils down to no one in congress knows how to write laws. They might as well say, IRS, do what you want. HHS, do what you want. ICE, do what you want. So much for being a nation of laws, but I had long ago come to the conclusion we were not a nation of laws. This only reinforces that opinion.

Now I know why my son doesn't even bother to vote, he always said Washington is going to do what Washington wants to do and no one can ever change that. I guess he is right.
 
Perotista said:
So basically it all boils down to no one in congress knows how to write laws. They might as well say, IRS, do what you want. HHS, do what you want. ICE, do what you want. So much for being a nation of laws, but I had long ago come to the conclusion we were not a nation of laws. This only reinforces that opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The courts must defer to the agencies determinations, but there are limits. Also, those agencies didn't just pop into existence. They were authorized by acts of Congress, and staffed according to the law. Political appointees were put in place by people we elected

Like you said, we get the govt we deserve
 
1750Texan said:
How are you framing this a states rights issue. States did not have health exchanges nor did states offer its residents health insurance. The federal government did not force the states to form health exchanges.

So what is the state's rights issue on this ruling?
Click to expand...

I was responding to Taylor when he said the following:

Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
That's how the law works in this country. It's not what the law says, it's what some judge says it says (or what some judge thinks it should say to help us "progress" as a country).

I was agreeing with him, it is not what the law says or what the consitution says, it is how some judge decides what it says. It may be there in black and white, in plain English, for all to read and easily to comprehend. But some judge through lawyerese decides it doesn't say that at all. The written word means nothing. That is what I was getting at.
 
Cephus said:
They're supposed to rule on the Constitution's applicability to the law, they don't care about the Constitution anymore, they only care about their own personal feelings and their political masters.
Click to expand...

Why should they care, the Constitution means only what they say it means now anyway.
 
sangha said:
Yes and no. The courts must defer to the agencies determinations, but there are limits. Also, those agencies didn't just pop into existence. They were authorized by acts of Congress, and staffed according to the law. Political appointees were put in place by people we elected

Like you said, we get the govt we deserve
Click to expand...

I will say a big AMEN to that. It is true the president appoints his political appointees, but the people who run the agencies, the bureaus, the departments, projects and the like are all civil service who were there before any president and his appointees were elected or appointed and will be there long after they are gone. They are the unseen, unelected, unappointed people who run things, the others are just there for face time.
 
Thats always been the difference between conservative judges and liberal ones. The hobby lobby case is a perfect example. The conservatives simply followed the law as written and the dissenting liberals followed ……. i don't know…something else - maybe a ouija board.

It will be interesting to see how the full court rules. Do we follow laws as written or do we try to guess what legislatures really meant or what we as a court think the law *should* be.

You can already guess based on the judge dissenting that there will probably be an attempt to legislate from the bench. He mentioned "catastrophic consequences". So in essence, he's saying that the status quo before Obamacare was "catastrophic" to the country. Clearly a judge with an agenda.


Perotista said:
So what you are saying it doesn't matter one iota how the law was written, what it says in plain English. What matters is the stacking of the D.C. court by this president so he can interpret any law how he sees fit regardless of what the law actually says?
Click to expand...
 
ludin said:
Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

The ruling just came in and is a huge blow to the obama administration.
The 3 judge panel ruled that only people on state run exchanges qualified per the law.

This could pretty much end obamacare as we know if it the SCOTUS rules the same way.
the administration of course will appeal.
Click to expand...

I do not see SCOTUS rulling the same way,A so called conservative judge ruled that Obama-care was legal as a tax.
 
TobyOne said:
Thats always been the difference between conservative judges and liberal ones. The hobby lobby case is a perfect example. The conservatives simply followed the law as written and the dissenting liberals followed ……. i don't know…something else - maybe a ouija board.

It will be interesting to see how the full court rules. Do we follow laws as written or do we try to guess what legislatures really meant or what we as a court think the law *should* be.

You can already guess based on the judge dissenting that there will probably be an attempt to legislate from the bench. He mentioned "catastrophic consequences". So in essence, he's saying that the status quo before Obamacare was "catastrophic" to the country. Clearly a judge with an agenda.
Click to expand...

That is what our judicial branch has come to, for sure
 
iguanaman said:
And when it does make it to Robert's Court there is no doubt how it will rule. Just another yawn from some partisan Judges wet dream. When will they learn that the ACA is here to stay, millions of people are depending on it and more are liking it by the day.
Click to expand...

I believe that Roberts will rule they are constitutional. On this issue, he has not been a partisan, and his rulings up to now show that. Obamacare would be dead if not for his opinion on the tax aspect of it.
 
danarhea said:
I believe that Roberts will rule they are constitutional. On this issue, he has not been a partisan, and his rulings up to now show that. Obamacare would be dead if not for his opinion on the tax aspect of it.
Click to expand...

roberts has hardly been partisan. i thought his ruling on the tax issue was wrong as they constantly called it a penalty not a tax. it only became a tax when they tried to push it through the court system.

I still say it will be a 5-4 decision either way.

which is stupid. the law is very clear that only state run exchanges can get subsidies. it is there in black and white.
 
Perotista said:
That is what our judicial branch has come to, for sure
Click to expand...

there are still good judges out there just few and far between. the law is suppose to be neutral and independant of ideology but you constantly have judges making crap up that doesn't even exist as long as it justifies them politically.
 
ludin said:
there are still good judges out there just few and far between. the law is suppose to be neutral and independant of ideology but you constantly have judges making crap up that doesn't even exist as long as it justifies them politically.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have seen so much of that I have given up completely on our judicial system. Heck, on our whole political system.
 
sangha said:
No, it's not



No, it's not



No, it's not
Click to expand...

From the law:

26 U.S. Code § 36B, 2, a - the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or
Click to expand...

Black and white. It is the literal meaning of the words. The Federal Exchange does not receive the subsidies the way the law is written. It was written for State Exchanges.

Probably should have read before we passed it.
 
sangha said:
Yes, the one paragraph out of thousands and thousands of pages of text seems straightforward when you ignore those other million words.

However, if you were to look at those other words, you'd find some that clearly suggest that the tax credits would also apply to people who bought through an exchange run by the feds. This creates "ambiguity" and the court has a process, established long before AVA was even proposed, to resolve such ambiguities. This process requires the court to defer to the agency's interpretation of the text unless one can provide a compelling case for why they should not be deferred to (such as the interpretation is clearly in conflict with any reasonable interpretation of the text, unconstitutionality, etc)

In the decision that allows the subsidies, the court cites several examples of text that make no sense unless the authors intended the subsidies to apply to all of the exchanges, and not just those "established by the States". Ergo, "ambiguity"...Ergo "deference" to the IRS's interpretation
Click to expand...

The government added to the ambiguity by exempting US Territories from the law by stating that they aren't "States". That's sure to come up in the appeal.
 
This is really all moot anyway, given the ACA is unconstitutional. There is no power in the constitution for the govt to spend money on healthcare. One court ruling isnt going to fix that.
 
Samhain said:
The government added to the ambiguity by exempting US Territories from the law by stating that they aren't "States". That's sure to come up in the appeal.
Click to expand...

very much so that is going to come up in the appeal. that right there just unabiguously said that there is a difference between the federal exchange and the States.

i found it right here.

HHS suddenly finds ObamaCare exemptions for territories « Hot Air

Almost exactly a year later, HHS has changed its mind. After a “careful review” of the statute — which presumably didn’t happen when this letter went out last year — HHS has discovered that “State” really does just mean states after all, and not any other level of government

that right there is the nail in the coffin.

State really means state and not any form of government. they can't constantly change the definitions willy nilly they have to be consistant.
 
ludin said:
very much so that is going to come up in the appeal. that right there just unabiguously said that there is a difference between the federal exchange and the States.

i found it right here.

HHS suddenly finds ObamaCare exemptions for territories « Hot Air

Almost exactly a year later, HHS has changed its mind. After a “careful review” of the statute — which presumably didn’t happen when this letter went out last year — HHS has discovered that “State” really does just mean states after all, and not any other level of government

that right there is the nail in the coffin.

State really means state and not any form of government. they can't constantly change the definitions willy nilly they have to be consistant.
Click to expand...

They can, and they have. The political left is heavily invested in the effort. The courts and government institutions have been very accommodating with that effort lately. Anyone bucking the effort is summarily smeared. It happens right here on DP all the time, too.
 
ludin said:
very much so that is going to come up in the appeal. that right there just unabiguously said that there is a difference between the federal exchange and the States.

i found it right here.

HHS suddenly finds ObamaCare exemptions for territories « Hot Air

Almost exactly a year later, HHS has changed its mind. After a “careful review” of the statute — which presumably didn’t happen when this letter went out last year — HHS has discovered that “State” really does just mean states after all, and not any other level of government

that right there is the nail in the coffin.

State really means state and not any form of government. they can't constantly change the definitions willy nilly they have to be consistant.
Click to expand...

Not like tax and penalty.
 
Blue_State said:
From the law:



Black and white. It is the literal meaning of the words. The Federal Exchange does not receive the subsidies the way the law is written. It was written for State Exchanges.

Probably should have read before we passed it.
Click to expand...

That same provision says
“[e]ach State shall, not
later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit
Exchange (referred to in this title as an “Exchange”)[.]”
Click to expand...

Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.
 
sangha said:
That same provision says


Funny how, despite all your whining about the literal meaning of the words, you don't complain about how 36 states did not establish an exchange even though the law says they had to.
Click to expand...

I didn't know we were talking about states setting up exchanges or not. I was pretty sure we were talking about the wording in the document that allows for use of Federal subsidies. I thought we were talking about the court ruling. Funny how you are whining about something we aren't even talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom